Erebus 25 years on

[Taildragger67]

1. Did ZK-NZP crash? - Yes

2. Was it CFIT or mech failure? - CFIT

3. Did the flight crew take an action which placed the aircraft in a situation where it suffered CFIT? - Yes

4. Did the flight crew recklessly take that action without due regard to any briefing, or were they operating in accordance with what they had been briefed on? - The latter

5. Were the crew aware of earlier flights which had descended to low level? - Yes

6. Did the carrier discipline any pilot who had descended to low level on earlier flights? - No

7. Did the carrier indeed seek to cover up the fact that earlier flights had descended to low level? - No, they used it in marketing the flights

8. Was it therefore reasonable for the flight crew to assume that it was ok to descend to low level? - Yes, in VMC conditions

9 - Are VMC conditions determined visually? - Yes - if you look out and see it's clear (or do not see that it is not clear), then usually (and in Jim Collins's long experience) chances are it's clear

10. Did some outside party do something to change the route from what the flight crew were led to expect? - Yes

11. Would it be reasonable to think that this outside party should tell the flight crew of such a change? - Yes

12. Did they so tell the flight crew? - No

13. Was the outside party therefore negligent in not informing the flight crew of that action? - Yes

14. Can we assume that, if the flight crew knew their actual position relative to Mt Erebus, they would have descended the aircraft to 1600'?

So... yes, the flight crew were responsible for descending the aircraft over the sea to the north of Ross Island. Aliens did not do it and the aircraft did not do it of its own accord or under radio control from Auckland; Collins and Cassin did it.

So Collins and Cassin must take responsibility for doing that. Indeed I don't think anyone has ever denied that fact.

However, they did so, as we know, based on briefings that made them believe that they would be taking such action 20-odd miles off Ross Island. That this reality changed is not their fault. It was a combination of their training, meticulous following of that training, and the change made to the nav inputs, which put them into the 'wrong' place at the wrong time.

It was also entirely reasonable for them to assume that conditions were VMC.

In summary:
IF THE WAYPOINT CHANGE HAD NOT BEEN MADE, OR IF THE FLIGHT CREW HAD BEEN INFORMED OF THE CHANGE, THE FLIGHT CREW WOULD NOT HAVE ASSUMED THAT THEY WERE SEVERAL MILES AWAY AND WOULD NOT HAVE DESCENDED THE AIRCRAFT WHERE THEY DID SO.

The flight crew's actions were the last links in the chain of causation, which started with the nav waypoint change. At any point, the chain could have been broken - eg. not making the change, telling the crew, crew not descending below 16,000', or even selecting G/A power and nose-up just a few seconds earlier. But it wasn't.

So the carrier is (at least vicariously) to a very large extent, liable.

To draw a parallel with VH-OJH at Bangkok - it was the hands-on actions of the flight crew, operating the aircraft's systems, which caused it to overshoot the runway; it didn't do so by itself. But the crew were 100% exonerated, as it could be proven that they were acting 100% as per their training for such conditions. It was the training which was at fault.

Let us consider the following scenario:
- I am in a foreign city, out for dinner and trying to get back to my hotel.
- I look on the map and see a street which runs directly from the restaurant, to my hotel front door.
- Unknown to me, a water-main has burst half-way down that road, not visible from the surface but undermining and weakening the road. Local authorities know about it - but I am unaware of it and there are no warning signs.
- I therefore assume I know where I am and head down the road.
- Halfway down, I fall through the tarmac and into a hole.

Prospector, according to your logic, I am mostly, if not totally, to blame. Yes, I put myself in danger by walking down the road. But is it my fault that the road was weakened, and no-one bothered to tell me?

Your logic would also support arguments that women who wear attractive clothes or go to pubs are to blame if they get raped; one hears of very few nuns getting so attacked.

One day, lying on their death-bed, someone will 'fess up and tell those assembled that it was they who changed a couple of digits on the printout of waypoints given to the crew of of ZK-NZP prior to its last trip. If they are still alive, they are living with a terrible burden.

As for Mahon's 'peers' agreeing or disagreeing with his findings of fact, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (sorry for dragging them back in here) - who were Mahon's judicial superiors (ie. better than peers) not only did not disagree with Mahon's findings of fact but went on to praise his meticulousness. So his direct superiors (NZ at the time having recourse to the Privy Council but not to any US court) did not, as you assert, disagree with his findings to do with the crash.

What they could not agree with, was his opinion as to whether there was a conspiracy to cover something up. Indeed they did not even say there was not a cover-up; they simply could not agree that there was an organised conspiracy to cover up. It's a fine point, but an important one.

It's not too long a judgment; if you read it from the point of view of the conspiracy aspect, rather than as to whether the Committee is assessing the findings as to the crash, you'll see the difference. I would agree that it's a difference which someone without legal training may easily miss, given the time apparently spent discussing the crash. The Committee's discussion is not actually as to the crash; it is as to whether or not there is evidence of a conspiracy.

The Committee went on to say that it was time to put it all to rest. I suggest we agree with that opinion.